1. Secondhand Smoke. Among the Left is a group of anti-smoking activists for whom abolishing tobacco use is a religious calling. When Americans did not respond as totally, nor as quickly, as the activists wished, they devised a new strategy: they told nonsmokers that the smokers were killing them! Since it was nearly impossible to point to people who died as a result of secondhand smoke, they use epidemiological studies, defined by the WHO as the studey of the distribution and determinants of health-related states or events including disease to prove their contention. 50,000 Americans a year, we are told, are killed by secondhand smoke. Hysteria masquerading as science.
2. Dr. James Enstrom, disputed the epidemiological studies on secondhand smoke in the British Medical Journal: The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed . Most epidemiological studies have found that environmental tobacco smoke has a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer. Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 | BMJ
a. What happens when scientists disagree with the Left? A longtime professor at UCLA, told that he would not be rehired because his "research is not aligned with the academic mission" of his department, Enstrom, an epidemiologist at UCLA's School of Public Health, has a history of running against the grain. In 2003 he wrote a study, published in the British Medical Journal, in which he found no causal relationship between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related death a conclusion that drew fire both because it was contrary to popular scientific belief and because it was funded by Philip Morris . serious concerns not only about the diesel regulations but about academic freedom and scientific research as a whole. Scientist's Firing After 36 Years Fuels 'PC' Debate at UCLA | Fox News
3. Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases develop at advancing ages. Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible, because concentrations of secondhand smoke in the air, individual rates of inhalation, and metabolic transformations vary from moment to moment, year after year, location to location . In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory . More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. Gio Batta Gori - The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke
4. A real laugher is the outdoor smoking ban various nanny-state governments have instituted. But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure in places where people can move freely about is long enough to cause substantial health damage . To make matters worse, in trying to convince people that even transient exposure to secondhand smoke is a potentially deadly hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06siegel.html
5. Columbia University magazine included this in its Letters section, from Dr. Attila Mady: The theatrics around the antismoking crusade not only discredit those who resort to fuzzy logic, but also compromise an overall laudable effort to improve public health. There are no prospective case-control studies of smokers. Nor will there ever be, since a properly designed study would require fifty years and millions of participants .Statistics ignore herd immunity and exposure to volatile and particulates since the onset of the industrial age and dont translate into the real world. Columbia Magazine, Spring 2012, p.4.
6. Hypothetically, as many individuals on the Right dislike smoking as do individuals on the Left why, then, are those on the Left so much more likely to believe that secondhand smoke can seriously hurt their health, and, possibly, kill them? And why are Liberal cities, governed by Liberal, so much more likely to ban outdoor smoking .?
a. When Liberals hear the words studies show, or experts say, they cease to question authority.
Hence Lock-Step Liberals
2. Dr. James Enstrom, disputed the epidemiological studies on secondhand smoke in the British Medical Journal: The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed . Most epidemiological studies have found that environmental tobacco smoke has a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer. Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 | BMJ
a. What happens when scientists disagree with the Left? A longtime professor at UCLA, told that he would not be rehired because his "research is not aligned with the academic mission" of his department, Enstrom, an epidemiologist at UCLA's School of Public Health, has a history of running against the grain. In 2003 he wrote a study, published in the British Medical Journal, in which he found no causal relationship between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related death a conclusion that drew fire both because it was contrary to popular scientific belief and because it was funded by Philip Morris . serious concerns not only about the diesel regulations but about academic freedom and scientific research as a whole. Scientist's Firing After 36 Years Fuels 'PC' Debate at UCLA | Fox News
3. Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases develop at advancing ages. Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible, because concentrations of secondhand smoke in the air, individual rates of inhalation, and metabolic transformations vary from moment to moment, year after year, location to location . In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory . More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. Gio Batta Gori - The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke
4. A real laugher is the outdoor smoking ban various nanny-state governments have instituted. But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure in places where people can move freely about is long enough to cause substantial health damage . To make matters worse, in trying to convince people that even transient exposure to secondhand smoke is a potentially deadly hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06siegel.html
5. Columbia University magazine included this in its Letters section, from Dr. Attila Mady: The theatrics around the antismoking crusade not only discredit those who resort to fuzzy logic, but also compromise an overall laudable effort to improve public health. There are no prospective case-control studies of smokers. Nor will there ever be, since a properly designed study would require fifty years and millions of participants .Statistics ignore herd immunity and exposure to volatile and particulates since the onset of the industrial age and dont translate into the real world. Columbia Magazine, Spring 2012, p.4.
6. Hypothetically, as many individuals on the Right dislike smoking as do individuals on the Left why, then, are those on the Left so much more likely to believe that secondhand smoke can seriously hurt their health, and, possibly, kill them? And why are Liberal cities, governed by Liberal, so much more likely to ban outdoor smoking .?
a. When Liberals hear the words studies show, or experts say, they cease to question authority.
Hence Lock-Step Liberals
